Laver is the GOAT. Period. [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Laver is the GOAT. Period.

lordmanji
11-09-2006, 01:02 AM
Won calendar year grand slams twice in 1962 and 69. Agassi is thought of highly especially since he won not even a calendar year slam but a career slam. That alone should show just what an achievement it is to do it once but what legendary stuff it is to do it twice.

Add three additional slams to Laver for a grand total of 11 tying Borg. Only Sampras and Emerson have more at 14 and 12. Now consider that he achieved this second calendar slam after being prohibited for SIX YEARS from the majors because he turned pro. That's 24 majors he missed. Laver DEFINITELY would have won at minimum just three majors he'd be tied with Sampras. Considering he won back to back calendar slams when he was able to play, you'd have to figure that number realistically be at least 6 giving him 17 majors. For perspective, if Federer (who is now on a similar tear that Laver was on) had missed just the last year, he'd only have six majors.

It might be fun to live in the moment of Fed's greatness but let's give Laver his due, people. The debate is over until Fed wins at least 17 majors. Laver is the greatest player of all time.

DDrago2
11-09-2006, 01:12 AM
If Federer wins RG and more slams than Sampras the story is over - he is the greatest. Prohibitet bla bla from the other hand those were very different times, certainly less competitive and less varied surface-wise Laver is one of the greatest but Federer can surpas him

MisterQ
11-09-2006, 01:19 AM
Laver's 1962 Grand Slam, while certainly remarkable, should not be rated on the level that a modern-day Grand Slam would be, since the very best players in the world tended to play on the pro tour and not in the majors at that time. For this reason it can be misleading to talk about numbers of majors won in pre-Open Era careers.

His 1969 achievement can more easily be considered by modern standards, however: very impressive. :worship:

guga2120
11-09-2006, 01:24 AM
if Federer wins Roland Garros, thats it. Hes the GOAT.

GlennMirnyi
11-09-2006, 01:51 AM
Sampras is the GOAT, at least 'till now.

cmurray
11-09-2006, 01:56 AM
Lord Almighty. Here we go again.

When are people going to understand that EVERY generation has a GOAT.

Laver
Borg
Sampras
Federer

In 10 years, somebody's gonna come along and this WHOLE discussion is be
"blah blah is greater than Federer. Can you BELIEVE it?"

Macbrother
11-09-2006, 01:57 AM
Laver's '62 GS was against amatuers. Both Laver's GS's were played on 2 surfaces, grass or clay. Finally, the depth top to bottom is simply not comparable to today's field. In a list of retired GOAT's Laver is certainly on it, as is Borg and Sampras, but Federer if he keeps up this pace is sure to end all arguments.

GlennMirnyi
11-09-2006, 01:58 AM
14 GS isn't a relative measure.

Tennis Fool
11-09-2006, 02:08 AM
Welcome to the boring two months before the AO :wavey: :p

Fedex
11-09-2006, 02:19 AM
It might be fun to live in the moment of Fed's greatness but let's give Laver his due, people. The debate is over until Fed wins at least 17 majors. Laver is the greatest player of all time.
That's poor reasoning. Sampras' 14 slams is the record, currently. Laver is one of the top 3 players of all time, without a doubt, but Sampras does hold the GS record. There's no way we would ever know how many slams Laver would have won, had he not turned pro.
Should Federer win RG, and another 3+ slams, then he is certainly in the conversation.

Fedex
11-09-2006, 02:23 AM
Welcome to the boring two months before the AO :wavey: :p
Well we've got one more tournament to go before that. ;) :p
And besides I'll be keeping myself busy with football and basketball, so I promise to keep myself occupied . :)

guga2120
11-09-2006, 02:33 AM
14 GS isn't a relative measure.

0 Roland Garros's is though

lordmanji
11-09-2006, 03:50 AM
That's poor reasoning. Sampras' 14 slams is the record, currently. Laver is one of the top 3 players of all time, without a doubt, but Sampras does hold the GS record. There's no way we would ever know how many slams Laver would have won, had he not turned pro.
Should Federer win RG, and another 3+ slams, then he is certainly in the conversation.

lol there's no way? how about winning a calendar year slam six years after his first one? he definitely wouldve won at least 4 during those SIX YEARS and TWENTY FOUR SLAMS if he can come back after a six year imposed hiatus, dont you think?

Katastrophe
11-09-2006, 03:55 AM
lol there's no way? how about winning a calendar year slam six years after his first one? he definitely wouldve won at least 4 during those SIX YEARS and TWENTY FOUR SLAMS if he can come back after a six year imposed hiatus, dont you think?

I'm not weighing in on this one, but that stat is amazing! No wonder Fed was moved to tears when Laver handed him the AO trophy. :)

lordmanji
11-09-2006, 03:58 AM
Laver's '62 GS was against amatuers. Both Laver's GS's were played on 2 surfaces, grass or clay. Finally, the depth top to bottom is simply not comparable to today's field. In a list of retired GOAT's Laver is certainly on it, as is Borg and Sampras, but Federer if he keeps up this pace is sure to end all arguments.

each generation has to take what they're dealt. while winning on an additional two hardcourts is admirable, im sure that those clay and grass courts different with the tournament as well. a slam's a slam. just the same, every era has depth. there may be a perception of lack of depth, but like what federer's doing, its because of a player's dominance. when you say one era is better than the other - its harder, more depth, more variety in surfaces - what you're really trying to compare is the game at different evolutionary stages. it's a fallacy to think an era won't improve upon the last certainly 20-30 years after Laver the game. also, it's illogical to say there's less depth from the sheer number of players aiming for titles. what's your basis for that? does feds era have more depth than sampras? and sampras over lendl? lendl over mcenroe? mcenroe over borg? borg over connors? when it comes down to it, you still have to go through the same number of people to win a slam.

DrJules
11-09-2006, 06:47 AM
Laver's 1962 Grand Slam, while certainly remarkable, should not be rated on the level that a modern-day Grand Slam would be, since the very best players in the world tended to play on the pro tour and not in the majors at that time. For this reason it can be misleading to talk about numbers of majors won in pre-Open Era careers.

His 1969 achievement can more easily be considered by modern standards, however: very impressive. :worship:

The 1969 grand slam is the only one achieved in the history of tennis when all the best players were eligible.

jazar
11-09-2006, 06:56 AM
with nadal being so dominant on clay with his 60+ match winning streak, if federer ends that streak in the final of roland garros and goes on to win the grand slam he will be undoubedly the GOAT. if he ends nadals clay winning streak before then or someone else does he will still need to win more slams than sampras, which he probably will anyway.

Boris Franz Ecker
11-09-2006, 07:34 AM
Laver is a serious candidate.

It's reported, that Laver himself thought, Lew Hoad was better than him.

CmonAussie
11-09-2006, 12:29 PM
[All images copyright International Tennis Hall of Fame.]
[All images copyright International Tennis Hall of Fame.]


Rod George Laver "Rocket"

Born: August 09, 1938

Hometown: Rockhamption, Queensland, Australia

Citizenship: Australia

Handed: Left

Inducted: 1981
Grand Slam Record

Australian Singles 1960, 62, 69
Singles finalist 1961
Doubles 1959-61, 69
Mixed finalist 1959


French Singles 1962, 69
Singles finalist 1968
Doubles 1961
Doubles finalist 1968, 69
Mixed 1961
Mixed finalist 1959


Wimbledon Singles 1961, 62, 68, 69
Singles finalist 1959-60
Doubles 1971
Doubles finalist 1959
Mixed finalist 1959, 60


U.S. Singles 1962, 69
Singles finalist 1960-61
Doubles finalist 1960, 70, 73
Tournament Record

Italian Singles 1962, 71
Singles finalist 1961
Doubles 1962


Davis Cup Team Member 1959-62, 73

Rod Laver was so scrawny and sickly as a child in the Australian bush that no one could guess he would become a left-handed whirlwind who would conquer the tennis world and be known as possibly the greatest player ever.

A little more than a month before Don Budge completed the first Grand Slam, Rodney George "Rocket" Laver was born August 9, 1938, at Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia. Despite lack of size and early infirmities, Laver grew strong and tough on his father's cattle property and emulated Budge by making the second male Grand Slam in 1962 as an amateur--then became the only double Grand Slammer seven years later by taking the major singles (Australian, French, Wimbledon, U.S.) as a pro.

Few champions have been as devastating and dominant as Laver was as amateur and pro during the 1960s. An incessant attacker, he was nevertheless a complete player who glowed in backcourt ad at the net. Laver's 5-foot-81/2, 145 pound body seemed to dangle from a massive left arm that belonged to a gorilla, an arm with which he bludgeoned the ball and was able to impart ferocious topspin. Although others had used topspin, Laver may have inspired a wave of heavy-hitting topspin practitioners of the 1970s such as Bjorn Borg and Guillermo Vilas. The stroke became basic after Laver.

As a teenager he was sarcastically nicknamed "Rocket" by Australian Davis Cup captain Harry Hopman, "He was anything but a Rocket Hopman recalled. "But Rod was willing to work harder than the rest, and it was soon apparent to me that he had more talent than any other of our fine Australian players."

His initial international triumph came during his first trip abroad in 1956, when he won the U.S. Junior Championship at 17. Three years later he was ready to take his place among the world's best when he won the Australian singles and, Bob Mark, the doubles, and was runner-up to Alex Olmedo for the Wimbledon championship. The Australian victories were the first of Laver's 20 major titles in singles, doubles and mixed placing him fifth among all-time male winners behind Roy Emerson (28), John Newcombe (25), Frank Sedgman (22), Bill Tilden (21). Jean Borotra also won 20. His 11 singles (equaled by Bjorn Borg) were second to Emerson's 12.

The losing Wimbledon final of 1959 was the beginning of an incredible run of success in that tournament. He was a finalist six straight times he entered, losing in 1960 to Neale Fraser, winning in 1961 and 1962, and--after a five-year absence because professionals were barred until 196--winning again in 1968 and 1969. Only two others had played in six successive finals, back before the turn of the century: Willie Renshaw, 1881 through 1886 and Wilfred Baddely, 1891 through 1896. Borg played in six straight, 1976 through 1981. While winning Wimbledon four straight times (the only man since World War I to win four prior to Borg) and proceeding to the fourth round in 1970, Laver set a male tournament record 31 consecutive match wins, ended by his loss to Roger Taylor, and eclipsed by Borg in 1980.

The year 1969 was Laver's finest, perhaps the best experienced by any player, as he won a open-era record 17 singles tournaments (tied by Guillermo Vilas in 1977) of 32 played on a 106-16 match record. In 1962 he won 19 of 34 on 134-15.

Unlike his Grand Slam year of 1962 as an amateur, he was playing in tournaments that were to all, amateur and pro, and this Slam was more impressive. It was endangered only a few times--Tony Roche forcing him to a fifth set exhausting 90-game semifinal in the Australian championships 7-5, 22-20, 9-11, 1-6, 6-3; Dick Crealy winning the first two sets of a second-rounder in the French; Premjit Lall winning two sets of a second-rounder at Wimbledon; Stan Smith threatening in the fifth set of a fourth-rounder at Wimbledon; Arthur Ashe and Newcombe pushing him to four sets in the Wimbledon semifinal and final (6-4, 5-7, 6-4, 6-4); Dennis Ralston leading 2 sets to 1 in the fourth round of the U.S.; Roche winning the opening set of the mucky U.S. final, 7-9, 6-1, 6-2, 6-2 (which Laver played in spikes).

But that year Laver could always accelerate to a much higher gear and bang his way out of trouble. The closest anyone came to puncturing either Slam was Marty Mulligan, who held a point in the fourth set of their French quarterfinal in 1962, 6-4, 3-6, 2-6, 10-8, 6-2.

After his second year running as the No. 1 1962, and helping Australia win a fourth Davis Cup, Laver turned pro. It was a life of one-nighters, but Pancho Gonzalez was no longer supreme. Kenny Rosewall was at the top and gave Laver numerous beatings as their long, illustrious rivalry began. Rosewall beat Laver to win the U.S. Pro singles in 1963, but the next year defeated Rosewall and Gonzalez to win the first of his five crowns, four of them in a row beginning in 1966. He had a streak of 19 wins in the U.S. until losing the 1970 final to Roche.

Gonzalez pointing for a ninth crown in the 1964 final, was a formidable afternoon. Astonishingly the show went on--the pros were that way in that day--in a raging nor'easter that swept Boston with a blustery downpour, turning Longwood's grassy stadium to a bog. They slipped and fell, but both proud men were up to it, somehow producing fabulous shots. In the rain Laver signaled the end of Pancho's reign, 4-6, 6-3, 7-5, 6-4.

When open tennis dawned in 1968, Laver was ready to resume where he'd left off at the traditional tournaments, whipping Roche in less than an hour, 6-3, 6-4, 6-2, to take the first open Wimbledon.

In 1971 Laver won $292,717 in tournament prize money (a season record that stood until Arthur Ashe won $338,337 in 1975), the figure enabling him to become the first tennis player to make a million dollars on the court. Until the last days of 1978, when he was playing few tournaments, Laver was still the all-time leading money-winner with $1,564,213. Jimmy Connors then surpassed him.

In 1973 all professionals were permitted to play Davis Cup, and Laver honed himself for one last effort, after 11 years away. He was brilliant, teaming with John Newcombe to end a five-year U.S. reign, 5-0. Laver beat Tom Gorman in five sets on the first day and paired with Newcombe for a crushing straight-set doubles victory over Stan Smith and Erik van Dillen that clinched the Cup, Laver's fifth. Of all the marvelous Aussie Davis Cup performers he was the only one never to play in a losing series.

He was also a factor in winning three World Cups (1972, 1974-75) for Australia in the since disbanded team competition against the U.S. In 1976, as his tournament career was winding down, Laver signed with San Diego in World Team Tennis and was named the league's Rookie of the Year at age 38!

During a 23-year career that spanned the amateur and open eras, he won 47 pro titles in singles and was runner-up 21 times. Laver was elevated to the Hall of Fame in 1981.

His 13 years in the World Top Ten ranged from 1959 to 1975. No. 1 in 1961, 1962, 1968 and 1969. His last year there was No. 10 at age 37.

oz_boz
11-09-2006, 12:52 PM
Laver is a serious candidate.

It's reported, that Laver himself thought, Lew Hoad was better than him.

Please don't bring the "most talented" into the GOAT discussion. It's difficult enough to judge achievements. Safin might be better than Fed on his very best day, but he is not a GOAT candidate, and the same goes for Hoad and McEnroe vs. Laver and Borg.

NYCtennisfan
11-09-2006, 01:53 PM
:lol:

bokehlicious
11-09-2006, 01:56 PM
Safin might be better than Fed

:lol: :lol:

oz_boz
11-09-2006, 02:07 PM
JMPower, you missed a part when quoting me. Here it is.

on his very best day, but he is not a GOAT candidate

bokehlicious
11-09-2006, 02:09 PM
JMPower, you missed a part when quoting me. Here it is.

If Roger's on fire (A game), even a Marat on his very best day would lose.

oz_boz
11-09-2006, 02:14 PM
If Roger's on fire (A game), even a Marat on his very best day would lose.

Or win, both were pretty impressive in AO with Marat edging ROger by a tiny margin.

Anyway that's irrelevant in the GOAT discussion. Marat is already disqualified because of his inconsistency.

marcRD
11-09-2006, 02:29 PM
LAver is 2nd to Borg as alltime great. Both won their grand slams only on grass and claycourt.

However, Borg was much more dominant on clay than Laver who really had to fight hard to win his RG titles. Laver also was for a long time dominated by other players in the pro tour during his prime. Only in his late 20s you could really call him the greatest player in the world. Borg was dominant all his career, even his last year when he got to 2 slam finals and won 1 slam. Also, Borg never played AO. Both won 11 grand slams, but 7 out of 11 Grandslams won by Laver was againstamateurs. If the pros would have played Laver would probably not have won more than 2-3 grand slams before 66, from there to 69 he would probably win 2-3 grand slams every year.

It is a close call, but I prefer Borg.

mrpotatoman
11-09-2006, 02:32 PM
Welcome to the boring two months before the AO :wavey: :p

I always seem to come back at the wrong time :lol:

TheMightyFed
11-09-2006, 02:41 PM
Looks like it's between Laver and Borg now, Fed soon, and maybe Sampras but his clay record is not good enough to be GOAT. GOAT means you've mastered all surfaces, that is clear, surfaces are a fundamental in tennis game.

marcRD
11-09-2006, 02:46 PM
Looks like it's between Laver and Borg now, Fed soon, and maybe Sampras but his clay record is not good enough to be GOAT. GOAT means you've mastered all surfaces, that is clear, surfaces are a fundamental in tennis game.

Yes, that is very important. If you dont win RG but are really good on clay, maybe you have mastered all surfaces. But Sampras was horrible on clay which means he is too limited to be called GOAT.

Borg never won a hardcourt grand slam but was an amazing player on hardcourt and got to 4 USOPEN finals and won YEC 3 times. If Federer lets say gets to 2-3 more finals and loses against a great claycourt player like Nadal every time, he could still be remembered as an amazing clay court player. He already is in my opinion better on clay than Agassi ever was, he would have won RG 2 times if Nadal would not exist. Agassi did not face any Nadal or Kuerten when he won his RG.

CmonAussie
11-09-2006, 02:57 PM
LAver is 2nd to Borg as alltime great. Both won their grand slams only on grass and claycourt.

However, Borg was much more dominant on clay than Laver who really had to fight hard to win his RG titles. Laver also was for a long time dominated by other players in the pro tour during his prime. Only in his late 20s you could really call him the greatest player in the world. Borg was dominant all his career, even his last year when he got to 2 slam finals and won 1 slam. Also, Borg never played AO. Both won 11 grand slams, but 7 out of 11 Grandslams won by Laver was againstamateurs. If the pros would have played Laver would probably not have won more than 2-3 grand slams before 66, from there to 69 he would probably win 2-3 grand slams every year.

It is a close call, but I prefer Borg.
:wavey:
At least you`re being honest with the last line of your post..

Actually you were slightly wrong about one thing->> Laver won 5-Slams in the Open Era [including Wimby 68 & 69, AO 69, FO 69 & USO 69]..

In 1969 Laver was already 31-years old:angel: ~> yet he won the SLAM 7-years after his previous SLAM year:worship:

Borg was all washed up at age 26-years old:sad:

>>> Players get bonus marks for longevity [just ask Agassi]:cool:

Also you said Laver was not so good on clay, yet he won 2-French Open seperated by 7-years [six of which he wasn`t allowed to play]:sad:
Also he won the Italian Open twice [considered the 5th slam in that era];)

Australian Singles 1960, 62, 69
Singles finalist 1961
Doubles 1959-61, 69
Mixed finalist 1959


French Singles 1962, 69
Singles finalist 1968
Doubles 1961
Doubles finalist 1968, 69
Mixed 1961
Mixed finalist 1959


Wimbledon Singles 1961, 62, 68, 69
Singles finalist 1959-60
Doubles 1971
Doubles finalist 1959
Mixed finalist 1959, 60


U.S. Singles 1962, 69
Singles finalist 1960-61
Doubles finalist 1960, 70, 73
Tournament Record

Italian Singles 1962, 71
Singles finalist 1961
Doubles 1962

lordmanji
11-09-2006, 04:07 PM
:wavey:
At least you`re being honest with the last line of your post..

Actually you were slightly wrong about one thing->> Laver won 5-Slams in the Open Era [including Wimby 68 & 69, AO 69, FO 69 & USO 69]..

In 1969 Laver was already 31-years old:angel: ~> yet he won the SLAM 7-years after his previous SLAM year:worship:

Borg was all washed up at age 26-years old:sad:

>>> Players get bonus marks for longevity [just ask Agassi]:cool:

Also you said Laver was not so good on clay, yet he won 2-French Open seperated by 7-years [six of which he wasn`t allowed to play]:sad:
Also he won the Italian Open twice [considered the 5th slam in that era];)

Australian Singles 1960, 62, 69
Singles finalist 1961
Doubles 1959-61, 69
Mixed finalist 1959


French Singles 1962, 69
Singles finalist 1968
Doubles 1961
Doubles finalist 1968, 69
Mixed 1961
Mixed finalist 1959


Wimbledon Singles 1961, 62, 68, 69
Singles finalist 1959-60
Doubles 1971
Doubles finalist 1959
Mixed finalist 1959, 60


U.S. Singles 1962, 69
Singles finalist 1960-61
Doubles finalist 1960, 70, 73
Tournament Record

Italian Singles 1962, 71
Singles finalist 1961
Doubles 1962





thanks for pointing that out. also, let me point another thing out: the six years that he was banned from the grand slams is considered by many to be the prime years of a tennis player. he was banned from ages 24-30, that is from 1962 to 1968. yet at the age of 31 he still managed a calendar year grand slam along with one wimbledon. it must be hard for some people to grasp just how much of a travesty it was being banned during your prime yet still coming back and winning five grand slams.

stebs
11-09-2006, 05:19 PM
Everyone has holes to be picked in their arguments for being GOAT:

Laver and Borg never won slams on hardcourts.
Sampras never won slams on RG.
Agassi didn't win enough slams.

DrJules
11-09-2006, 05:26 PM
Everyone has holes to be picked in their arguments for being GOAT:

Laver and Borg never won slams on hardcourts.
Sampras never won slams on RG.
Agassi didn't win enough slams.

But Laver was successful regularly on hard courts during his professional period.

DrJules
11-09-2006, 05:30 PM
For information results from the Professional tour which until 1968 was a separate tour from that played by amateurs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Tennis_Championships

CmonAussie
11-09-2006, 05:56 PM
For information results from the Professional tour which until 1968 was a separate tour from that played by amateurs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Tennis_Championships

:wavey: Thanks that`s a great link:cool: ...

Also it strengthens Rod Laver`s case for being Greatest Of All Time:angel: ...>>> since Laver won the 3-Major Pro Tennis Tournaments [pre Open Era] on three different survaces all multiple times:worship:

Wembly Championships ~ Laver won 6-times [unofficial World Championships]:worship:

US Pro ~ Laver won 3-times:cool:

French Pro ~ Laver won 2-times;)

CmonAussie
11-09-2006, 05:59 PM
Check this out for a career~~**~~

Overall singles titles of Rod Laver 1960-1975 (164):
Sources: Joe McCauley, History of Professional Tennis, London 2001; Michel Sutter, Vainqueurs-Winners 1946-1991, Paris 1992; Rod Laver (with Bud Collins), The Education of a Tennis Player, New York 1971; John Barrett, World of Tennis Yearbook 1970-1976, London 1970-1976.

Amateur titles 1960-1962

1960: Brisbane Australian Champ., Lausanne, Newport, Philadelphia, South Orange, Southampton. N.Y. (6).

1961: Wimbledon, Adelaide, Auckland, Bad Neuenahr, Brisbane, Caracas, Deauville, Hamburg German Champ., Houston, Kingston, Melbourne, Sydney, Sydney Metropolitan (13).

1962: Sydney Australian Champ., Paris French Champ., Wimbledon, Forest Hills US Champ., Bournemouth BHC, Brisbane, Brisbane Hard Courts, Connaugh, Dublin Irish Champ., Gstaad Swiss Champ., Hamburg German Champ., Hilversum Dutch Champ., Houston, Lugano, Melbourne, Oslo, Palermo, Queen's Club, Rome Italian Champ., Sydney (21).

Professional titles 1963-1967

1963: Cannes, Kitzbühl, Nordwijk-on-Sea, Capetown (4).

1964: Boston US Pro, Wembley London Pro, Geneve, Johannesburg, Monterrey, Perth, Port Elizabeth, Salisbury (8).

1965: Wembley London Pro, Adelaide, Cannes, Durban, Lake Tahoe, Capetown, Hobart, Los Angeles R.R., Melbourne, Nairobi, New York US Pro Indoor, Newport R.R., Oklahoma, Rhodesia, San Rafael (15).

1966: Boston US Pro, Wembley London Pro, Binghampton, Brisbane, Cannes, Capetown, Forest Hills R.R., Johannesburg, Melbourne, Perth (10).

1967: Wimbledon Pro, Boston US Pro, Wembley London Pro, Paris French Pro, Paris Indoor, Binghampton, Boston Garden, Brisbane, Fort Worth, Marseille, Miami, London BBC 2, New York US Pro Indoor, New York Madison Square Garden, Newport R.R., Oklahoma, Orlando, San Diego, San Juan (18).

Titles at the begin of Open era 1968-1975

1968: Wimbledon, Boston US Pro, Paris French Pro, Buenos Aires, Corpus Christi, La Paz, Los Angeles PSW Open, London Indoor, London BBC 2, New York Madison Square Garden, Sao Paulo (11).

1969: Brisbane Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon, US Open, South African Open, Boston US Pro, Wembley British Indoor, Anaheim, Baltimore, Binghampton, Fort Worth, Los Angeles, London BBC 2, Madrid, New York Madison Square Garden Invitational, Orlando, Philadelphia US Pro Indoor, St. Louis (18).

1970: Canadian Open, South African Open, Wembley British Indoor, Fort Worth WCT, Louisville WCT, Los Angeles PSW Open, New York Champions Classic, Philadelphia US Pro Indoor, Queen's Club, South Orange, St. Louis WCT, Sydney, Vancouver WCT (13).

1971: Rome Italian Open, Berkeley WCT, Bologna WCT, Fort Worth WCT, London Indoor, New York Champions Classic (6).

1972: Denver WCT, Houston WCT, Philadelphia US Pro Indoor, Richmond WCT, Toronto WCT (5).

1973: Hong Kong, Miami WCT, Richmond WCT, Sydney Australian Indoor, Toronto WCT (5).

1974: Bretton Woods, Houston WCT, Las Vegas, Palm Desert WCT, Philadelphia US Pro Indoor, Tokyo WCT (6).

1975: Caracas WCT, La Costa WCT, Orlando WCT, Puerto Rico CBS Classic, Sao Paulo WCT (5).

Note: This list of 164 tournament title wins between 1960 and 1975 may still be incomplete. Nevertheless it is far more than the 'official' record of Jimmy Connors with 109 tournament title wins in the open era.

lordmanji
11-09-2006, 06:03 PM
Everyone has holes to be picked in their arguments for being GOAT:

Laver and Borg never won slams on hardcourts.
Sampras never won slams on RG.
Agassi didn't win enough slams.

lets get one thing straight: laver COULD NOT win a grand slam on a hard court because at the time he won them, they were either on grass or clay. whereas during borg's time, the grand slam was on hardcourt but he lost. yours is a very misleading statement.

perhaps most damaging to sampras is that he did not win RG. this is damaging because a clay court game calls for a different style of game. its more building and constructing points, backcourt consistency and endurance. sampras was not adept at doing the first on clay and the latter two were possibly his weakest aspects. guys like borg, federer and agassi show how much more complete their games are in winning RG or getting close. that's not to say that you can't win RG with S and V like Roche had done and Sampras who has ten times more talent than Roche could not win RG. mental attitude also plays a role. Sampras skipped RG at least once from memory and judging from his talkign about RG, never seemed to truly believe he could win it.

jacobhiggins
11-09-2006, 06:51 PM
Based on Laver's achievements he has to be considered one of the best if not the greatest player ever.

Saying that, based on Federer's talents alone, he has to considered one of the best.

Laver's achievements I think will always be greater then Federers but if they two ever played in there primes, Federer would have demolished him.

To me, the greatest player to ever play in any sport, is the player that is the toughest to beat, the strongest, and how much that player is able to do in his or her respected sport. Laver cannot be in that category to me, he would have got beat my other players that were superior to him in alot of ways! He achieved probablly some of the greatest things in his sport that will probablly never be repeated, but he wouuldn't stack up to players these days! People say you cannot compare eras, well in this case, you most certanily can!


Does that make him any less great, of course not, but that doesn't mean he would ever beat Federer, or Sampras, or Borg in a tennis match. So to me, he is not the best ever!

lordmanji
11-09-2006, 08:14 PM
Based on Laver's achievements he has to be considered one of the best if not the greatest player ever.

Saying that, based on Federer's talents alone, he has to considered one of the best.

Laver's achievements I think will always be greater then Federers but if they two ever played in there primes, Federer would have demolished him.

To me, the greatest player to ever play in any sport, is the player that is the toughest to beat, the strongest, and how much that player is able to do in his or her respected sport. Laver cannot be in that category to me, he would have got beat my other players that were superior to him in alot of ways! He achieved probablly some of the greatest things in his sport that will probablly never be repeated, but he wouuldn't stack up to players these days! People say you cannot compare eras, well in this case, you most certanily can!


Does that make him any less great, of course not, but that doesn't mean he would ever beat Federer, or Sampras, or Borg in a tennis match. So to me, he is not the best ever!

any player in the top 1000 right now would be able to beat laver if theyre both at their primes. you like so many others forget that the game evolves and gets better. here's another shocker: twenty years from now any player in the top 1000 will be able to beat federer if both are at their primes.

lordmanji
11-09-2006, 08:15 PM
Check this out for a career~~**~~

Overall singles titles of Rod Laver 1960-1975 (164):
Sources: Joe McCauley, History of Professional Tennis, London 2001; Michel Sutter, Vainqueurs-Winners 1946-1991, Paris 1992; Rod Laver (with Bud Collins), The Education of a Tennis Player, New York 1971; John Barrett, World of Tennis Yearbook 1970-1976, London 1970-1976.

Amateur titles 1960-1962

1960: Brisbane Australian Champ., Lausanne, Newport, Philadelphia, South Orange, Southampton. N.Y. (6).

1961: Wimbledon, Adelaide, Auckland, Bad Neuenahr, Brisbane, Caracas, Deauville, Hamburg German Champ., Houston, Kingston, Melbourne, Sydney, Sydney Metropolitan (13).

1962: Sydney Australian Champ., Paris French Champ., Wimbledon, Forest Hills US Champ., Bournemouth BHC, Brisbane, Brisbane Hard Courts, Connaugh, Dublin Irish Champ., Gstaad Swiss Champ., Hamburg German Champ., Hilversum Dutch Champ., Houston, Lugano, Melbourne, Oslo, Palermo, Queen's Club, Rome Italian Champ., Sydney (21).

Professional titles 1963-1967

1963: Cannes, Kitzbühl, Nordwijk-on-Sea, Capetown (4).

1964: Boston US Pro, Wembley London Pro, Geneve, Johannesburg, Monterrey, Perth, Port Elizabeth, Salisbury (8).

1965: Wembley London Pro, Adelaide, Cannes, Durban, Lake Tahoe, Capetown, Hobart, Los Angeles R.R., Melbourne, Nairobi, New York US Pro Indoor, Newport R.R., Oklahoma, Rhodesia, San Rafael (15).

1966: Boston US Pro, Wembley London Pro, Binghampton, Brisbane, Cannes, Capetown, Forest Hills R.R., Johannesburg, Melbourne, Perth (10).

1967: Wimbledon Pro, Boston US Pro, Wembley London Pro, Paris French Pro, Paris Indoor, Binghampton, Boston Garden, Brisbane, Fort Worth, Marseille, Miami, London BBC 2, New York US Pro Indoor, New York Madison Square Garden, Newport R.R., Oklahoma, Orlando, San Diego, San Juan (18).

Titles at the begin of Open era 1968-1975

1968: Wimbledon, Boston US Pro, Paris French Pro, Buenos Aires, Corpus Christi, La Paz, Los Angeles PSW Open, London Indoor, London BBC 2, New York Madison Square Garden, Sao Paulo (11).

1969: Brisbane Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon, US Open, South African Open, Boston US Pro, Wembley British Indoor, Anaheim, Baltimore, Binghampton, Fort Worth, Los Angeles, London BBC 2, Madrid, New York Madison Square Garden Invitational, Orlando, Philadelphia US Pro Indoor, St. Louis (18).

1970: Canadian Open, South African Open, Wembley British Indoor, Fort Worth WCT, Louisville WCT, Los Angeles PSW Open, New York Champions Classic, Philadelphia US Pro Indoor, Queen's Club, South Orange, St. Louis WCT, Sydney, Vancouver WCT (13).

1971: Rome Italian Open, Berkeley WCT, Bologna WCT, Fort Worth WCT, London Indoor, New York Champions Classic (6).

1972: Denver WCT, Houston WCT, Philadelphia US Pro Indoor, Richmond WCT, Toronto WCT (5).

1973: Hong Kong, Miami WCT, Richmond WCT, Sydney Australian Indoor, Toronto WCT (5).

1974: Bretton Woods, Houston WCT, Las Vegas, Palm Desert WCT, Philadelphia US Pro Indoor, Tokyo WCT (6).

1975: Caracas WCT, La Costa WCT, Orlando WCT, Puerto Rico CBS Classic, Sao Paulo WCT (5).

Note: This list of 164 tournament title wins between 1960 and 1975 may still be incomplete. Nevertheless it is far more than the 'official' record of Jimmy Connors with 109 tournament title wins in the open era.

that is an amazing statistic and accomplishment. so laver has bested jimmy's record of single titles, more than matched agassi's career grand slam with not one but two calendar year slams, has won the french open something that sampras could never do, all the while being banned six years during his prime from playing 24 majors. the GOAT debate is over.

jacobhiggins
11-09-2006, 08:27 PM
any player in the top 1000 right now would be able to beat laver if theyre both at their primes. you like so many others forget that the game evolves and gets better. here's another shocker: twenty years from now any player in the top 1000 will be able to beat federer if both are at their primes.

The game evolves and gets better but I don't know about that, maybe they won't be as good as the players these days, but the generation now is physcially superior then Lavers, that we know for sure!

In this case though Laver couldn't compete with Federer today, so yes I think Federer is the better player, hasn't acheived as much, but which person is harder to beat, Federer!

lordmanji
11-09-2006, 08:59 PM
The game evolves and gets better but I don't know about that, maybe they won't be as good as the players these days, but the generation now is physcially superior then Lavers, that we know for sure!

In this case though Laver couldn't compete with Federer today, so yes I think Federer is the better player, hasn't acheived as much, but which person is harder to beat, Federer!

since the game changes so much between eras, comparing players head to head is useless. its obvious that roger would wipe the snot out of laver. but if you want to compare GREATNESS, you compare accomplishments. we see even in sampras versus federer whose generations overlap hard to compare as one was on his way out while the other on his way up. trying to compare players with over 20 yr gap? forget about it.

what you can do is compare a player in different era's achievements otherwise the field would never be level but level as we can get it. you can ask how dominant were they? what titles and majors did they win? on what surfaces? laver's accomplishments are far more impressive than federer on that respect and at this point. but unless federer keeps up his pace for another 2 years, he won't even be in the same conversation for GOAT.

jacobhiggins
11-10-2006, 01:02 AM
I agree with you up to a point but even if Federer doesn't acomplish what Laver or Sampras did, i'd still pick him as the ultimate tennis player.

If aliens came to earth and held a tennis tournament for the surival of planet earth, there best alien tennis player against any player in the history of the game, you would pick Federer over Laver.

I have a different opionon on who is really the better tennis player. Laver is greater no question, but I don't think he is nessaccarly better!

scoobs
11-10-2006, 01:06 AM
Laver is the GOAT. Period.

I'm glad that's finally settled.

Wasn't so hard, was it? :)

MisterQ
11-10-2006, 01:16 AM
I agree with you up to a point but even if Federer doesn't acomplish what Laver or Sampras did, i'd still pick him as the ultimate tennis player.

If aliens came to earth and held a tennis tournament for the surival of planet earth, there best alien tennis player against any player in the history of the game, you would pick Federer over Laver.

I have a different opionon on who is really the better tennis player. Laver is greater no question, but I don't think he is nessaccarly better!

The aliens have laser accuracy and a fighting mentality that's out of this world. With their unorthodox grips they can handle low slice like it's child's play. They would eat Fed alive (literally), but I think Nadal could pose a challenge. :devil:

Katastrophe
11-10-2006, 03:13 AM
The aliens have laser accuracy and a fighting mentality that's out of this world. With their unorthodox grips they can handle low slice like it's child's play. They would eat Fed alive (literally), but I think Nadal could pose a challenge. :devil:

You're the best...I just did a spittake on my keyboard! :lol:

PamV
11-10-2006, 03:56 AM
Won calendar year grand slams twice in 1962 and 69. Agassi is thought of highly especially since he won not even a calendar year slam but a career slam. That alone should show just what an achievement it is to do it once but what legendary stuff it is to do it twice.

Add three additional slams to Laver for a grand total of 11 tying Borg. Only Sampras and Emerson have more at 14 and 12. Now consider that he achieved this second calendar slam after being prohibited for SIX YEARS from the majors because he turned pro. That's 24 majors he missed. Laver DEFINITELY would have won at minimum just three majors he'd be tied with Sampras. Considering he won back to back calendar slams when he was able to play, you'd have to figure that number realistically be at least 6 giving him 17 majors. For perspective, if Federer (who is now on a similar tear that Laver was on) had missed just the last year, he'd only have six majors.

It might be fun to live in the moment of Fed's greatness but let's give Laver his due, people. The debate is over until Fed wins at least 17 majors. Laver is the greatest player of all time.

I don't think you can compare the days of Emerson in with the present players. Tennis has changed a lot since those days. If you just look at total wins but you don't examine the way the sport was played at the time and depth of the field it's meaningless. At one time the rules used to be that the title holder of Wimbledon didn't have to play any rounds and he would just go straight to the final and play whomever made it there. So given that rule.....it would have made it much easier to win a string of Wimbledons ... the champion would have the advantage. That's just one example and what I am saying is I think we have to look more in depth when we go back and compare the past to the present.

I don't think there needs to be agreement on who is GOAT. Let everyone see it how they want. Just remember that regarding Laver ... they used wooden rackets and it was possible to play serve/volley tennis all the time then because their wasn't as much power in passing shots. There didn't need to be the specialization that there is now switching from clay to grass or to hard court. Laver only had to play on two surfaces....clay and grass. So if you think all 4 surfaces are the important thing then how to do you evaluate this regarding Laver? Laver only played on two surfaces and it was all serve/volley even on clay.

I don't think winning all 4 majors in one career as Agassi did means more than Sampras winning 14 majors. Agassi beat Medvedev in the final of the French Open when Medvedev was ranked 100. After seeing how hard Roger fought playing Nadal 4 times on clay......I just don't think Agassi had near the challenge that Federer does on clay. If all Roger had to do was beat Moya and Medvedev on clay to win a French Open he could do that! To me, Sampras accomplishments mean more than Agassi's because Sampras winning the 7 Wimbledons seems bigger than the quality of what Agassi won. Most of Agassi's major titles were AO.

However, we could go more in depth and examine who each guy played in his draw at each of his majors in order to evaluate the difficulty. Some major draws are easy and some aren't.

One thing to factor into the decussion of Federer is that he's not just concentrating on majors. He's also concentrating on Masters Series events. He made it to the finals of 4 majors in one year and won 3 of them and within the same year he made it to the finals of 6 Masters Series and won 4 of them. Yes, Laver won 4 majors in one year.....but they were on two surfaces not 4 different ones. Also the depth of the top 100 was lower in Laver's day and he and all the pros recognize that. I am not trying to deminish Laver but just put it all into perspective.

silverarrows
11-10-2006, 03:58 AM
If Federer wins more GS than Sampy with a RG crown, He is DEFINITELY the greatest tennis player of all time. END OF DISCUSSION. :cool:

PamV
11-10-2006, 04:07 AM
thanks for pointing that out. also, let me point another thing out: the six years that he was banned from the grand slams is considered by many to be the prime years of a tennis player. he was banned from ages 24-30, that is from 1962 to 1968. yet at the age of 31 he still managed a calendar year grand slam along with one wimbledon. it must be hard for some people to grasp just how much of a travesty it was being banned during your prime yet still coming back and winning five grand slams.

But doesn't this also speak to the fact that the level of athleticism required of the sport and the level top 100 was lower in those days? Tennis didn't used to attract so many guys from all over the world who thought they could make good money being on tour. If the top 100 consisted of good quality top 10 and then a bunch of hacks making up the 11-100 then it's not as difficult to come back.

Not only tennis.....all sports have gradually gotten more physically demanding. Compare a football player of the 1940's to one of today. The guys from the 1940's would have looked slight and short by comparison.

PamV
11-10-2006, 04:12 AM
If Federer wins more GS than Sampy with a RG crown, He is DEFINITELY the greatest tennis player of all time. END OF DISCUSSION. :cool:


When Sampras was in his prime were they constantly talking about what he would need to do to become the GOAT? I never remember that being discussed then. It seemed like in his day it was never thought anyone would win more than 12 majors. It was rather nice for Sampras because no one was calling Emerson the GOAT and saying he needed to win more than him. Emerson's era was not in the Open era and there wasn't any depth to the field.

TennisGrandSlam
11-10-2006, 07:15 AM
Lord Almighty. Here we go again.

When are people going to understand that EVERY generation has a GOAT.

Laver
Borg
Sampras
Federer

In 10 years, somebody's gonna come along and this WHOLE discussion is be
"blah blah is greater than Federer. Can you BELIEVE it?"


Add Lendl for 1980s please :devil:

MilMilCho
11-10-2006, 07:32 AM
If Federer wanna be the greatest ever, all he needs to do is win RG.
Even if he wins more than 14 slams but RG is not on the list,
he's still not the greatest. Winning more slams than Sampras did probably wont make Fed the greatest.
Rod Laver is now still being considered the greatest of all time,
becuz he won calender grand slams, not winning more than 14 slams.
So if Federer wanna become the greatest, then winning RG probably is the most important thing for him to do.

TennisOz
11-10-2006, 08:36 AM
That's poor reasoning. Sampras' 14 slams is the record, currently. Laver is one of the top 3 players of all time, without a doubt, but Sampras does hold the GS record. There's no way we would ever know how many slams Laver would have won, had he not turned pro.
Should Federer win RG, and another 3+ slams, then he is certainly in the conversation.

Speaking of poor reasoning, you'd probably say Tiger Woods isn't the greatest golfer of all time until he's passed someone else's total - until then the jury is out or we reserve judgement on Tiger? Newsflash - if you are 25 (Federer and Woods are the same age aren't they?) you can't have won more GS's than someone who finished playing at an older age (even if they lost 6 years).

I haven't had time to read all the other posts so I'll just give some of my general thoughts on who is the 'best' of all time. Firstly, rather than looking at stats look at video footage of past champions and compare them to Federer - and don't resort to the old equipment etc argument, have a look at the physique of the modern player compared to the past champion too.

If almost every area of human endeavour one cares to name has improved why I ask would the tennis player of the 60's be 'better' than the player of the 00's. Laver was built like Coria and he was the best player of his generation and could only beat the best players around at that time and amass his # of GS. Federer plays on a tour which has, what at least 5 times the # of professionals and many more players than in Laver's day have a realistic chance of winning a GS. Who would have thought in Laver's day that a GS winner wouldn't come from Australia, USA or perhaps Spain, France and a few others. Tennis in Australia for example is not so much in decline (only Hewitt in top 50 compared to probably 10 or more in the 60's), there are just so many more players from so many more different countries now.

It pains me as an Aussie to say it but Laver was not as good as Federer is now (or Sampras was in his decade) whatever the record books say, my knowledge of coaching, my eyes and what I've said above tell me that.

TennisOz:)

refero*fervens
11-10-2006, 11:45 AM
^ Nice post. While it still remains a matter of opinion for many that's a nicely reasonable and logical response! (BTW Woods is 30-31, but being a golfer that'd be at about the stage you mean. After all, Nicklaus' last win was at around 46. But anyway:))

edit:OT but :sad: for Aus tennis. I think Hewitt may even be the only player in the top 100.

TennisOz
11-10-2006, 11:57 AM
^ Nice post. While it still remains a matter of opinion for many that's a nicely reasonable and logical response! (BTW Woods is 30-31, but being a golfer that'd be at about the stage you mean. After all, Nicklaus' last win was at around 46. But anyway:))

edit:OT but :sad: for Aus tennis. I think Hewitt may even be the only player in the top 100.

Yeah, stupid me, what was I thinking Woods is over 30 but as you say a real youngster in golfing terms, probably 'younger' than Federer is at 25 in tennis. Federer said recently he didn't think his career would last much beyond 30 and he thought the London Olympics when he is 31 will be just about the perfect swan song for him - on grass at Wimbledon, gold medal and all that.

TennisOz:)

Dancing Hero
11-10-2006, 12:05 PM
Don't think you can say Laver is GOAT period just like that. The game has changed so much since the sixties. He must have been a great player however. He's just one of a number of great players in the annals of the sport.

TennisOz
11-10-2006, 12:44 PM
Everyone has holes to be picked in their arguments for being GOAT:

Laver and Borg never won slams on hardcourts.
Sampras never won slams on RG.
Agassi didn't win enough slams.

Maradona was all left foot,
Pele didn't help out in defence,
Ali had a bit of a glass jaw,
Beamon only did it at altitude
Bradman didn't average 100 in Test Cricket (only needed 4 in last innings)
blah, blah, yeah, yeah

As long as sport is played by humans, no one will be perfect.

Oh, its Laver's fault is it that the AO and USO changed to hardcourts after he retired?

TennisOz

Auscon
11-10-2006, 12:58 PM
I've seen very little of Rocket unfortunately...

His achievements are incredible, but it's just impossible to realistically compare players from different eras

The rackets, the shoes, the advent of 'sports science', who didnt get to play during what period, massive increase in ease of access to porn, travel conditions, the level of competition....

Technology.
True globalisation of the sport.
Evolution of the species.
Survivor Series 13 (13?!!).

I love comparing players of different eras just as much as the next person, but I could never bring myself to find some sort of conclusion because it'll never be realistic....someones always going to get ripped off.

All I know is, when I watch Roger Federer play I see the closest thing to perfection that I've ever seen, and that I think I'll ever see, on a tennis court. The power, the speed, the athleticism, the artistry, the court intelligence, the adaptability, the mental strength. Every possible aspect that could combine to make a champion of the sport just seem to have been maxed out.

I believe he is the most talented, but I'll wait til careers end to think about who's the greatest :)

Give me longevity, and a dirt crown.

I'm pretty sure he will

TennisOz
11-10-2006, 01:10 PM
Hoges (like the av)

There IS a way to make comparisons. Laver was filmed playing. Watch him playing and then watch Federer playing or if you can split screen, side by side. You will almost laugh at how comparatively slowly the ball is hit and how little spin was used by Laver. I don't buy the wooden racquet argument much - Philippoussis did a well document trial a while back with a wooden racquet and he hit his serve as fast as he did with his modern racquet.

I've seen Laver in the flesh but not Federer but on the basis that what you see on TV doesn't fully convey what you see in the flesh, believe me there is no comparison, racquets, shoes and whatever anyone wants to mention. As another poster (or you?) said, Federer is the nearest thing to perfection one can imagine, even allowing for the left-handed Nadal being able to hit heavy topspin and hence high balls to his (single handed) backhand

TennisOz:)

I've seen very little of Rocket unfortunately...

His achievements are incredible, but it's just impossible to realistically compare players from different eras

The rackets, the shoes, the advent of 'sports science', who didnt get to play during what period, massive increase in ease of access to porn, travel conditions, the level of competition....

Technology.
True globalisation of the sport.
Evolution of the species.
Survivor Series 13 (13?!!).

I love comparing players of different eras just as much as the next person, but I could never bring myself to find some sort of conclusion because it'll never be realistic....someones always going to get ripped off.

All I know is, when I watch Roger Federer play I see the closest thing to perfection that I've ever seen, and that I think I'll ever see, on a tennis court. The power, the speed, the athleticism, the artistry, the court intelligence, the adaptability, the mental strength. Every possible aspect that could combine to make a champion of the sport just seem to have been maxed out.

I believe he is the most talented, but I'll wait til careers end to think about who's the greatest :)

Give me longevity, and a dirt crown.

I'm pretty sure he will

lordmanji
11-10-2006, 03:28 PM
Hoges (like the av)

There IS a way to make comparisons. Laver was filmed playing. Watch him playing and then watch Federer playing or if you can split screen, side by side. You will almost laugh at how comparatively slowly the ball is hit and how little spin was used by Laver. I don't buy the wooden racquet argument much - Philippoussis did a well document trial a while back with a wooden racquet and he hit his serve as fast as he did with his modern racquet.

I've seen Laver in the flesh but not Federer but on the basis that what you see on TV doesn't fully convey what you see in the flesh, believe me there is no comparison, racquets, shoes and whatever anyone wants to mention. As another poster (or you?) said, Federer is the nearest thing to perfection one can imagine, even allowing for the left-handed Nadal being able to hit heavy topspin and hence high balls to his (single handed) backhand

TennisOz:)

ive already addressed this earlier so i'll just say that its foolish to compare who's better gamewise. too many factors change. you hardly know anything about the difficulties in laver's era so automatically assume (probably rightfully so) that what's newer is better and harder to overcome. instead we should measure greatness in history by looking at one's mark in it. That is to look at their accomplishments in their own time. Laver's accomplishments of two calendar year slams outshine Federer's and had he played those six years when he was 24-30, what is considered a player's prime years, he wouldve laid waste to any record federer would try to break.

marcRD
11-10-2006, 03:54 PM
It is difficult to compare the pro majors with grand slams. Anyway, wembley was played indoor and french pro tournament was played sometimes on indoor wood!

Anyway if we see how Rod Laver did in the pro tour your will see he didnt at all dominate the tour, Ken Rosewall faced him in 10 finals and won 6 between 63-67. Rod Laver surerly would not have won any real grand slam before 67, because he was possiblly not even the greatest player in the world.

His grand slam in 69 is however legitable and an amazing feat. I would bet Rod Llavers grand slams would be distribued something like this:

before 63>1 grand slam in wimbledon
63-66 4 grand slams
(2 wimbledon, 1 AO, 1 UO)
67-68 5 grand slams (2 wimbledon, 2 AOs, 1 UO)
69 the real grand slam
70 another wimbledon

Total number of grand slams: 15
7 wimbledons
4 AO
3 UO
1 RG

Ofcourse this is purely speculation.

vogus
11-10-2006, 04:00 PM
you can't compare Laver to later generations of players where the environment and the level of tennis has been immeasurably better than in the 1960's.

Laver has his place in history but i would put him well behind all of the modern greats in terms of the level of his game. It's too bad he didn't play in the modern era, but you can't give him GOAT just because he won 2 Grand Slams in a time when there was far less competition.

Fedex
11-10-2006, 07:56 PM
lol there's no way? how about winning a calendar year slam six years after his first one? he definitely wouldve won at least 4 during those SIX YEARS and TWENTY FOUR SLAMS if he can come back after a six year imposed hiatus, dont you think?
And one could argue, how many slams would Sampras would have won, had he got to play 3/4 majors on grass? The same question could apply to Federer.

marcRD
11-10-2006, 09:05 PM
And one could argue, how many slams would Sampras would have won, had he got to play 3/4 majors on grass? The same question could apply to Federer.


Or even Borg...

Also Borg never played AO and he played in the same time as 2 alltime american greats who he couldnt beat in USO. Would Laver have won against Connors and Mcenroe in USopen finals on hardcourt?

It is a question worth to be asked.

I rank Borg as the greatest tennis player of all time. Laver close 2nd and then there is Federer and Sampras.

Players like Ken Rosewell and Pancho Gonzales are unfortunately impossible to rank, maybe they where greater than LAver or even Borg. I simply dont have enought knowledge to include them in my list.

lordmanji
11-10-2006, 10:49 PM
And one could argue, how many slams would Sampras would have won, had he got to play 3/4 majors on grass? The same question could apply to Federer.

fair enough. how many slams would sampras wouldve won if half the majors were played on clay as in laver's era? players play and achieve in the circumstances GIVEN to them. in laver's era the challenges are different than in sampras' or federer. imagine if sampras was in federer's era right now then ask yourself how many slams he would win? certainly less and certainly the argument would be that that's because of fed's dominace. but in the time that he dominated look at the results. same with hewitt. in that two year span, he was the most dominant player taking wimbledon and the usopen. to go back or forward and compare eras is completely BOGUS.

Macbrother
11-11-2006, 12:36 AM
fair enough. how many slams would sampras wouldve won if half the majors were played on clay as in laver's era? players play and achieve in the circumstances GIVEN to them. in laver's era the challenges are different than in sampras' or federer. imagine if sampras was in federer's era right now then ask yourself how many slams he would win? certainly less and certainly the argument would be that that's because of fed's dominace. but in the time that he dominated look at the results. same with hewitt. in that two year span, he was the most dominant player taking wimbledon and the usopen. to go back or forward and compare eras is completely BOGUS.

Half the majors in Laver's era weren't played on clay. One of them was. And if you're so intent on saying how incomparable eras are then why are you coming out and saying Laver is the GOAT, period? He was the best of his era, nothing more, nothing less, he played on different surfaces against different competition so saying he's better than Sampras or Federer or Borg is baseless. To reverse your argument, how many slams do you think Laver would win if he Sampras and Federer were playing during that era? There's really no way of knowing. The only test we can even slightly objectively use is who dominated their respective eras the most. Certainly no one in tennis open era history has dominated 3 years like Federer has from '04-'06. Let's just be quiet about this for a while and see what history has to say in a few years, shall we?

lordmanji
11-11-2006, 12:52 AM
Half the majors in Laver's era weren't played on clay. One of them was. And if you're so intent on saying how incomparable eras are then why are you coming out and saying Laver is the GOAT, period? He was the best of his era, nothing more, nothing less, he played on different surfaces against different competition so saying he's better than Sampras or Federer or Borg is baseless. To reverse your argument, how many slams do you think Laver would win if he Sampras and Federer were playing during that era? There's really no way of knowing. The only test we can even slightly objectively use is who dominated their respective eras the most. Certainly no one in tennis open era history has dominated 3 years like Federer has from '04-'06. Let's just be quiet about this for a while and see what history has to say in a few years, shall we?

how about reading what i said first before you jump on what i say? if you actually open up your eyes before you come at me with this preconcocted argument, you might actually find that we're on the same point. at the same time, while federer's three year run is admirable, it is not as dominant as laver's in his two calendar grand slam years unless you think 2 and 3 slams a year is comparable. moreover, we can compare what federer has accomplished AT THE PRESENT with what laver has accomplished. nothing more. and at the moment, laver's record is more impressive than federers. those are the parameters of such a debate of who has accomplished more. if youd like to be quiet about it, feel free to but let us who like to compare what theyve achieved thus far mouth off and you can be quiet, eh? yet we could skip ahead in the future if you can stand it: if fed cant win more than what laver wouldve won at minimum, which is 15 grand slams (had he been allowed to play six years) then federer cannot be considered goat.

Macbrother
11-11-2006, 01:06 AM
how about reading what i said first before you jump on what i say? if you actually open up your eyes before you come at me with this preconcocted argument, you might actually find that we're on the same point. at the same time, while federer's three year run is admirable, it is not as dominant as laver's in his two calendar grand slam years unless you think 2 and 3 slams a year is comparable. moreover, we can compare what federer has accomplished AT THE PRESENT with what laver has accomplished. nothing more. and at the moment, laver's record is more impressive than federers. those are the parameters of such a debate of who has accomplished more. if youd like to be quiet about it, feel free to but let us who like to compare what theyve achieved thus far mouth off and you can be quiet, eh? yet we could skip ahead in the future if you can stand it: if fed cant win more than what laver wouldve won at minimum, which is 15 grand slams (had he been allowed to play six years) then federer cannot be considered goat.

Nothing was preconcocted, I simply looked at what you wrote and responded in kind. And yes, I think winning 8 slams in 3 years right now is certainly comparable to Laver's 2 surface, 1 amateur, 1 profesional Grand slam. In fact, I would probably tip the accomplishment to Federer's end regarding that, but not by much. Secondly, the comparison is unfair to begin with, you're comparing someone's completed career to someone who's right now playing at the peak of his capacities and barring death or massive injury is sure to gain much more. What is the point in that? Truly? You're comparing what someone might have done (Laver's missed slam opportunities) to what someone might do in the future. (Federer) Call it for what it is, speculation and conjecture, not some all out fact that Laver is the "GOAT, period."

Mechlan
11-11-2006, 01:10 AM
how about reading what i said first before you jump on what i say? if you actually open up your eyes before you come at me with this preconcocted argument, you might actually find that we're on the same point. at the same time, while federer's three year run is admirable, it is not as dominant as laver's in his two calendar grand slam years unless you think 2 and 3 slams a year is comparable. moreover, we can compare what federer has accomplished AT THE PRESENT with what laver has accomplished. nothing more. and at the moment, laver's record is more impressive than federers. those are the parameters of such a debate of who has accomplished more. if youd like to be quiet about it, feel free to but let us who like to compare what theyve achieved thus far mouth off and you can be quiet, eh? yet we could skip ahead in the future if you can stand it: if fed cant win more than what laver wouldve won at minimum, which is 15 grand slams (had he been allowed to play six years) then federer cannot be considered goat.

You say we can only compare on accomplishments. Fair enough, in that case Sampras wins the greatest ever title by virtue of his 14 grand slam titles. Though in that case I'm not sure why you keep mentioning Laver's lost years. If we consider all those slams that Laver may or may not have won in that time, surely it's only fair to speculate about the number of titles Sampras or Federer would have had if they had played their slams on the same surfaces as Laver.

lordmanji
11-11-2006, 03:19 AM
You say we can only compare on accomplishments. Fair enough, in that case Sampras wins the greatest ever title by virtue of his 14 grand slam titles. Though in that case I'm not sure why you keep mentioning Laver's lost years. If we consider all those slams that Laver may or may not have won in that time, surely it's only fair to speculate about the number of titles Sampras or Federer would have had if they had played their slams on the same surfaces as Laver.

its completely foolish to think that laver would not have won more grand slams seeing as how he won five after his prime productive years. its like adding two plus two. if laver wins four straight slams before he's barred for six years, and another four straight slams after he's barred and after his prime, then he would obviously have won a few in those six years. even if he averaged half a slam a year, he'd still be tied with sampras. and the reason why conjecturing about different surfaces is because you have to look at what was in their era. would you like for federer's accomplishments to be looked with such a skewed frame in the future when god knows what is improved/changed in the game?

lordmanji
11-11-2006, 03:24 AM
Nothing was preconcocted, I simply looked at what you wrote and responded in kind. And yes, I think winning 8 slams in 3 years right now is certainly comparable to Laver's 2 surface, 1 amateur, 1 profesional Grand slam. In fact, I would probably tip the accomplishment to Federer's end regarding that, but not by much. Secondly, the comparison is unfair to begin with, you're comparing someone's completed career to someone who's right now playing at the peak of his capacities and barring death or massive injury is sure to gain much more. What is the point in that? Truly? You're comparing what someone might have done (Laver's missed slam opportunities) to what someone might do in the future. (Federer) Call it for what it is, speculation and conjecture, not some all out fact that Laver is the "GOAT, period."

yes, i am comparing someones completed career versus someone in the middle. but i am not waiting until federer's career is over to weigh in. and what i am saying is right now based on whatever information we have with all grand slam winners, laver's is the most impressive thus rendering him GOAT. up until if ever federer at the end of his or during the course of his career makes me change my mind, then ill consider it. just look at tennis magazines top 40 of all time and see where federer was ranked. the reasoning was given for his (i think 11 ranking) was that he could only be judged by what he already accomplished. i, too, am judging with that criteria. as time passes, so will the debate evolve. but lets not stifle it by saying we'll never know anything for certain. thats the essence of opinion/argument/debate.

vogus
11-12-2006, 02:17 AM
how about reading what i said first before you jump on what i say? if you actually open up your eyes before you come at me with this preconcocted argument, you might actually find that we're on the same point. at the same time, while federer's three year run is admirable, it is not as dominant as laver's in his two calendar grand slam years unless you think 2 and 3 slams a year is comparable. moreover, we can compare what federer has accomplished AT THE PRESENT with what laver has accomplished. nothing more. and at the moment, laver's record is more impressive than federers. those are the parameters of such a debate of who has accomplished more. if youd like to be quiet about it, feel free to but let us who like to compare what theyve achieved thus far mouth off and you can be quiet, eh? yet we could skip ahead in the future if you can stand it: if fed cant win more than what laver wouldve won at minimum, which is 15 grand slams (had he been allowed to play six years) then federer cannot be considered goat.



sorry, but you are full of sh*t. Differing opinions are valid on GOAT, but you are trying to make a unilateral statement of fact without a solid argument to back it up. A Grand Slam title in the 1960s is not equivalent to a Grand Slam title today. And that is what brings down your argument like a house of cards.

lordmanji
11-12-2006, 02:47 AM
sorry, but you are full of sh*t. Differing opinions are valid on GOAT, but you are trying to make a unilateral statement of fact without a solid argument to back it up. A Grand Slam title in the 1960s is not equivalent to a Grand Slam title today. And that is what brings down your argument like a house of cards.

so is a grand slam this year as valid as last's? the year before? how about ten years from now?

TennisOz
11-13-2006, 10:05 AM
Just because 'you have addressed it', i.e. given your opinion, doesn't mean your opinion is 'right' because in matters of opinion there is no right or wrong. The question is, how do we judge who is the best player of all time?

There is no definitive way because Laver would struggle to beat Federer now for obvious reasons! You can take recourse to the record books if you like and make excuses for the equipment, lack of opposition and all that and come up with the qualified conclusion that at that time, Laver, in your opinion, was a better player than Federer is now. I suppose using that logic one could argue that Robin Ammerlaan and David Hall might be better than Laver. (without wishing to cause offence to anyone)

However, I prefer to state that in my opinion, Federer now would hardly lose a game to Laver then. In fact I would go so far as to say that many of the top Ladies of today could challenge or maybe beat Laver with the game they have now.

TennisOz:)
ive already addressed this earlier so i'll just say that its foolish to compare who's better gamewise. too many factors change. you hardly know anything about the difficulties in laver's era so automatically assume (probably rightfully so) that what's newer is better and harder to overcome. instead we should measure greatness in history by looking at one's mark in it. That is to look at their accomplishments in their own time. Laver's accomplishments of two calendar year slams outshine Federer's and had he played those six years when he was 24-30, what is considered a player's prime years, he wouldve laid waste to any record federer would try to break.

Boris Franz Ecker
11-13-2006, 10:10 AM
Players like Ken Rosewell and Pancho Gonzales are unfortunately impossible to rank, maybe they where greater than LAver or even Borg. I simply dont have enought knowledge to include them in my list.
Forget Ken Rosewall.

TennisOz
11-13-2006, 11:14 AM
Forget Ken Rosewall.

Let's not forget him - unlucky not have won Wimbledon, superhuman to make the final at 40 or 41 years of age, one of the best backhands of all time, unlucky to have played at the same time as Hoad, Laver, Fraser, Sedgeman etc and lucky enough to have sat next to me for a whole day at Wimbledon!! Very nice, unassuming man.

TennisOz:)

wcr
11-13-2006, 01:58 PM
Won calendar year grand slams twice in 1962 and 69. Agassi is thought of highly especially since he won not even a calendar year slam but a career slam. That alone should show just what an achievement it is to do it once but what legendary stuff it is to do it twice.

Add three additional slams to Laver for a grand total of 11 tying Borg. Only Sampras and Emerson have more at 14 and 12. Now consider that he achieved this second calendar slam after being prohibited for SIX YEARS from the majors because he turned pro. That's 24 majors he missed. Laver DEFINITELY would have won at minimum just three majors he'd be tied with Sampras. Considering he won back to back calendar slams when he was able to play, you'd have to figure that number realistically be at least 6 giving him 17 majors. For perspective, if Federer (who is now on a similar tear that Laver was on) had missed just the last year, he'd only have six majors.

It might be fun to live in the moment of Fed's greatness but let's give Laver his due, people. The debate is over until Fed wins at least 17 majors. Laver is the greatest player of all time.

Laver's legend as you've pointed out has been discussed and challenged on many boards. A lot of posters - including me - are too young to have seen Laver play. What the other discussions about his GOAT status have brought to the forefront for those who weren't there was that there were opponents (more than one) who owned Laver who he did not have to play when he won his two grand slams.

marcRD
11-13-2006, 02:09 PM
Forget Ken Rosewall.

He beat Laver more than Laver beat him in the pro tour and he was very old back then when Laver was still on his prime. Unlucky to have played in the pro tour for most of his career.

Net Cord
11-14-2006, 07:45 PM
I'm in the camp that says that it's very difficult, if not impossible, to compare players from different eras. Therefore, I'm not going to try to say whether Laver was "greater" than Sampras or Federer. That said, Laver would be a really tough matchup for Federer. If you've seen footage of Laver, you know that he had a great left handed forehand approach shot that he could hit with a lot of topspin. As much as Nadal's left handed topspin forehand gives Federer trouble, could you imagine Laver hitting such a shot and backing it up with his great net game? If Laver and Federer were in the same era, it would be incredible to see the two of them duke it out on a grass court.

thrust
11-14-2006, 11:38 PM
Laver has said that Rosewall was his all time toughest opponent. Ken missed 11 years of playing Slams because he was playing the Pro circuit, which he dominated much of the time. He won 4 Slams before 23 and another 4 after 33. He also beat Laver in the WCT finals in Dallas in 71 and 72 at the ages of 36 and 37. He also reached the Wimbledon and USO finals in 74 at the age of 39. He was the Justine of the Men^s tour, at 5ft-7". Arthur Ashe said that Ken had the best backhand and was the finest volleyer of any player he had ever played. He may not have been the greatest, but he is certainly one of the very geratest of all time. I saw him live, he was poetry in motion.

lordmanji
01-13-2007, 05:55 AM
heres old footage of laver v roche at wimbledon of 68

http://youtube.com/watch?v=7YVWYr4hQLE