[Sophocles]

This shouldn't even be a question. Ffs he won 18 tournaments that year, on all surfaces. If there'd been slams on hard or indoors he'd have won them as well. He lost 16 matches - so what? He won 120 and he won 18 tournaments including 4 slams.

The results of the poll are an embarrassment to MTF.

[SetSampras]

this thread is definitely furthering my speculation, people here didn't begin watching tennis until Fed entered his prime.. Ridiculous

[SaFed2005]

Laver played back when only the biggest of nations even played tennis. I would not really have called tennis a WORLD sport back in 69. But that is my opinion. I just feel that the only people who really played were either English or Australian or American. Again its my opinion... just writing my 2 cents. I did not exist in 69 so I can't really say how the quality of play was. I started watching tennis when Agassi and Sampras started playing.

[rickcastle]

Originally Posted by SetSampras

this thread is definitely furthering my speculation, people here didn't begin watching tennis until Fed entered his prime.. Ridiculous

I answered yes on the poll but this is ridiculous, another excuse of yours to blame Fedtards again for everything. Many people who are watching tennis now probably weren't even born in 1969... heck my mother was 9 years old in 1969 so it is not a question if people were able to watch Laver in his prime because lots of people probably weren't able to.

It's a question of knowing your tennis history, reading up on things, watching old clips on Youtube. Even if people began watching tennis when Sampras entered his prime or during the Borg-McEnroe era, they still wouldn't have witnessed Laver in action. 1969 is too far back to expect everyone here to have watched this.

[tripwires]

Originally Posted by EddieNero

69' wasn't even in the Open Era.

The Open Era began in 1968, when the Grand Slam tournaments agreed to allow professional players to compete with amateurs. Since the beginning of this era, professionals have been able to compete alongside amateurs in all tournaments. This has allowed tennis players the opportunity to make a good living playing tennis. The first event to go "open" was held on April 28, 1968 at The West Hants Club in Bournemouth, England,[53] while the first Grand Slam tournament to do so was the 1968 French Open (Roland Garros)[54] starting May 27.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tennis#Open_Era

Google is your friend.

I'm not surprised by the poll results or posts like EddieNero's. MTF is full of idiots half the time anyway.

[Benny_Maths]

Originally Posted by Topspindoctor

No, because Laver played in an era of mugs with less surface variation. Nadal's 2010>Laver's '69

Furthermore, to argue that smaller draws leads to top players meeting more often and hence there being more competition is to completely miss the point. Take today's tour, remove players ranked 1 to 992, and make all tournaments 8-man draws. You'll then have the 8 'top' players meeting all the time. But the actual competition that the eventual winner will have faced would still be nowhere near the toughest that today's era has to offer.

[Haelfix]

Laver was 31 years old at the time and the amusing thing is, he achieved the calendar slam when he wasn't even at his peak! So in a sense, the year is quite significantly overvalued.

It will always stand on its own, but imo the tour was just too different to really rank it against more modern years.

[buzz]

The best season ever. Yes he won all 4 GS.

The most impressive season ever. No, tennis was different then.

[Orka_n]

Can't argue with the CYGS. Even if 3 of them were on grass. 18 tournament wins, 120 matches won. Sure, 16 matches lost was it? But there is no such thing as perfect. This is the closest we have come to it as of now.

Federer might have been 1 match away in 2006 (& 2007 too probably) to make his season the best ever, but that's how it goes sometimes.

[Egreen]

Yep.

CYGS = Holy Grail of tennis.

[noddzy]

Rod Laver = Don Bradman of tennis. Hmm, both are Aussies Forgive my cricket reference all ye non-cricket peasantry

[Har-Tru]

Originally Posted by Sunset of Age

Absolutely, I don't even see why this would be a point of discussion.
The eventual, total achievements/results of any player in a given season is the only objective thing available to designate this, and a complete CYGS season goes above all other achievements. At least imho.

[ossie]

tennis in those days is like wta tennis compared to nowadays.

[nalbyfan]

Yes and none of today's players can even make a single GS and Laver made 2 GS so he's the best of all

[thrust]

Originally Posted by Gabe32

I don't know, I wasn't born/know nothing really about it, but it seems like it. 4 slams in one year against those opponents seems pretty impressive.

Also, I always felt like Fed was at his peak in 05-06. Still can't believe Safin snagged that AO in '05.

LAVER, for sure. Not only did he win the Grand Slam, he did it against Much Tougher Competition than Roger had.

Djokovic- McEnroe said Nole's year was better than his in 84, so I take his word for it.

McEnroe 84- Also much tougher competiton than Fed 06, destroying Connors at Wimbledon. Connors had beat him in 5 the year before.