Best Roger Federer Vs Best Rod Laver [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Best Roger Federer Vs Best Rod Laver

Speed of Light
11-06-2009, 01:44 PM
match played in a neutral surface in an era mid way between theirs with specially manufactured rackets half wooden and half modern, neutralizing any disadvantages to laver caused due to difference in era... with both players in their prime.... best of five... WHO WOULD WIN? Personally i think rocketrod will kick a$$ due to superior talent... :cool:

Action Jackson
11-06-2009, 01:47 PM
Original thread this one.

fsoica
11-06-2009, 01:48 PM
oh man...some guys never get tired of spreading bullshit around MTF...

Dini
11-06-2009, 01:48 PM
Pointless thread.

You can't compare players from different eras with confidence. The surfaces were playing differently and most of all the rackets were different big time. The game is much more physical these days than it was back then, also.

neme6
11-06-2009, 02:15 PM
too much time between those 2 generations, the game changed alot, it's way too hard to compare both of them, and I haven't haven't seen any footage of Laver yet so... i vote for Roger only because he looked invincible at the end of 06 and beginning of 07, but my vote doesn't mean anything since i haven't seen Laver play!

Burrow
11-06-2009, 02:37 PM
http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/8071/webstermq5.gif

manuel84
11-06-2009, 02:43 PM
neutralizing any disadvantages to laver caused due to difference in era...
Well, what about the height diff.? Laver is only 5'7'' or something.

willoughby
11-06-2009, 02:47 PM
Rod 3-6 4-6 7-5 6-4 6-3

mickymouse
11-06-2009, 02:50 PM
Those who vote, who has actually seen Rod Laver play? :rolleyes:

habibko
11-06-2009, 06:24 PM
you can't compare eras, that said, Roger would win for sure, it's called the evolution of sports.

Goldenoldie
11-06-2009, 06:26 PM
Yes I've seen Laver play (only on TV of course) and he gets my vote because of his adaptability, speed of thought, speed of reflex, and quality of opponents faced.

Having said that, I agree with everybody who says comparing one era with another is pointless.

Certinfy
11-06-2009, 06:27 PM
Laver.

batavlada
11-06-2009, 06:32 PM
Laver to win 6-1 7-5 6-1

Arkulari
11-06-2009, 06:41 PM
comparison of eras = pointless
not to mention a little thing called match-up :rolleyes:

Burrow
11-06-2009, 06:42 PM
comparison of eras = pointless
not to mention a little thing called match-up :rolleyes:

What does that have to do with this?

zerocool_
11-06-2009, 06:42 PM
99% ppl here never saw Laver playing..

BlueSwan
11-06-2009, 06:52 PM
99% ppl here never saw Laver playing..
Doesn't really matter. Habibko is right. There's probably not a single athlete from several decades ago who would compare favourably to the best athletes of today due to evolution of sports and sports results. Not Pelé, not Laver, not Babe Ruth. Their inherent talent might be as great as the greats of today, but they wouldn't have been pushed nearly as hard to reach the peak of their abilities. Like it or not, that's the way it goes in sports. Look at track & field. Track & field was a FAR bigger sport some decades ago, than it is now. However, the records set these days make guys from the 80's and before look slow as hell. Sergei Bubka (pole vaulting) is a rare exception, but even he set his records in the 90's. If you watch old tennis matches of Laver (there are some around), you'll probably be surprised by how hard he hits the ball. There's no question that he was formidably talented. But compare the MOVEMENT of even physical giants like Laver or Borg with any Federer/Nadal match and you realize how much more physical the game is today.

Swiss Mountain
11-06-2009, 06:55 PM
Laver only played against Aussie and Americans players at he time, that was the two nationalities allowed to play
If Laver face Nadal today, he would have never won the french.
The game was homogen, and not exhausting; only two surfaces (grass, clay)
So of course it's Fed, what he does is magic, what Laver did was great.

madmax
11-06-2009, 06:58 PM
The GOAT against a guy from weak era:rolleyes: Is it really worth asking?

MrChopin
11-06-2009, 09:06 PM
Doesn't really matter. Habibko is right. There's probably not a single athlete from several decades ago who would compare favourably to the best athletes of today due to evolution of sports and sports results. Not Pelé, not Laver, not Babe Ruth. Their inherent talent might be as great as the greats of today, but they wouldn't have been pushed nearly as hard to reach the peak of their abilities. Like it or not, that's the way it goes in sports. Look at track & field. Track & field was a FAR bigger sport some decades ago, than it is now. However, the records set these days make guys from the 80's and before look slow as hell. Sergei Bubka (pole vaulting) is a rare exception, but even he set his records in the 90's. If you watch old tennis matches of Laver (there are some around), you'll probably be surprised by how hard he hits the ball. There's no question that he was formidably talented. But compare the MOVEMENT of even physical giants like Laver or Borg with any Federer/Nadal match and you realize how much more physical the game is today.

Nostalgiatards won't ever buy this. If Laver was reborn around August 8, 1981 and trained in the same exact way, he would have won the last 5 grand slams and smashed Federer into retirement somewhere in 2004. It's called an observable "talent" and today's weak era. Or bullshit by most that apply reason and realize that you can't live in yesterday.

tennis2tennis
11-06-2009, 09:19 PM
all the people who voted for laver remember laver said he's honoured to be mentioned in the same breath as Roger!...so put the meth down and step away from your screens!:cool:

nanoman
11-06-2009, 09:31 PM
How could anyone compare a glorified hobbyist to a fully-fledged pro ?

Fed(or anyone from this era for that matter) has been better trained, better prepared than Laver could have ever dreamed of. And that's nothing against Laver's talent. If he was born in the eighties and trained, tested and raised by the same methods like the pros today we might have a contest. But that's not the question asked.

Echoes
11-06-2009, 09:37 PM
Laver only played against Aussie and Americans players at he time, that was the two nationalities allowed to play


Was Gimeno Aussie or American? I don't remember.


The game was homogen, and not exhausting; only two surfaces (grass, clay)


There were many more than 2 surfaces, different kinds of grass (Har-Tru, if you read :wavey:) and it was exhausting.