[Dougie]

Originally Posted by Saberq

yes I am a Djokovic fan but I hate when people put Laver ahead of Fed....I never watched Laver live but I saw Roger Federer and nobody was better than him and nobody will ever be .....some guy might win 20 GS's one day but he wont be Roger Federer........

Wow...No matter how hard you tried, I doubt you could ever write a post that made less sense than this.

[Macbrother]

Originally Posted by Saberq

yes I am a Djokovic fan but I hate when people put Laver ahead of Fed....I never watched Laver live but I saw Roger Federer and nobody was better than him and nobody will ever be .....some guy might win 20 GS's one day but he wont be Roger Federer........

Laver was the Federer of his era. He had no weaknesses. Good serve but not overpowering, great return, power, grace, an elegant all-court game, he moved softly and swiftly (the best mover of his time, like Federer) and dominated the sport for many years across all surfaces. He also achieved the sports pinnacle achievement -- the grand slam. And don't tell me how much harder that is today, two people came within one match of it, and one of them came within 2 sets of it twice. Even in the context of his era his achievements stand out still just a little bit over Federer to me, and others.. but I will certainly grant you it's arguable.

[Egreen]

Sampras is too low on your list. He never won RG but neither did Tilden and Gonzales.

Someone with 7 Wimbledons and 14 majors shouldn't be ranked that low. His Wimbledons trump Tilden's and Gonzales' US titles. Laver, Federer and Rosewall are definitely ahead of Sampras.

[Saberq]

Originally Posted by Macbrother

Laver was the Federer of his era. He had no weaknesses. Good serve but not overpowering, great return, power, grace, an elegant all-court game, he moved softly and swiftly (the best mover of his time, like Federer) and dominated the sport for many years across all surfaces. He also achieved the sports pinnacle achievement -- the grand slam. And don't tell me how much harder that is today, two people came within one match of it, and one of them came within 2 sets of it twice. Even in the context of his era his achievements stand out still just a little bit over Federer to me, and others.. but I will certainly grant you it's arguable.

you said it his era.....that era is a complete and utter joke ....

[Macbrother]

Originally Posted by Saberq

you said it his era.....that era is a complete and utter joke ....

Again. What is this based on? You yourself just admitted you've never seen him play. How are you qualified to talk about an era you know absolutely nothing about?

[Saberq]

Originally Posted by Macbrother

Again. What is this based on? You yourself just admitted you've never seen him play. How are you qualified to talk about an era you know absolutely nothing about?

I said I never saw him play LIVE.....I saw a lot of matches on youtube and that era was filled by inferior athletes playing with wooden rackets,serving like 80MPH with almost 0 baseline play......pathetic

[DLobb]

[quote=Groove Dude;11598490]Loving the discussion



Its tough for me to put Hoad up much higher (though I will put him up to #36), due to his inconsistency. Yeah Gonzales and Kramer and Laver and Rosewall and the rest all said that Hoad at his best was better than anyone, but we hear that in recent eras in regards to guys like Rios, Safin, and Nalbandian. Should Safin be higher than 53? This list I try to reward consistency and longevity.

Groove Dude, what are your standards for consistency and longevity? Didn't Gonzales and Rosewall know something about consistency when they rated Hoad at #1?
Hoad was very consistent from 1956 to about 1964, that is from ages 21 to 29, prime years for a player. In 1958 and 1959, he won the pro bonus money pool for the best overall record for those calendar years. In 1960, playing part-time, he won a four-man tour of Australia/New Zealand, and played in 8 tournament finals, all against Rosewall, winning four (including the two most important).
In 1958 and 1959, his overall record against Gonzales was 62 wins and 72 losses (winning 23 to 21 in 1959), including two stretches of ten-game losses when his back would not allow him to play well. Also, he won his matches against Gonzales both years at the Forest Hills Pro, the most prestigious pro tournament.
In 1963, he won a head to head against Laver 13 matches to 0, and in 1964 won a four-man tour against Laver, Rosewall, and Anderson (beating Laver 3 matches to 1).
Hoad's consistency numbers are comparable to other major players, and the number of challenging, high-calibre matches he played per year exceeds the numbers of Federer or Sampras.

[MachineGun]

Originally Posted by Saberq

I said I never saw him play LIVE.....I saw a lot of matches on youtube and that era was filled by inferior athletes playing with wooden rackets,serving like 80MPH with almost 0 baseline play......pathetic

But every player at the time benefited from the same treatments, the same type of material. Even if the game is very different nowadays, it doesn't change anything in their legacy and the immensity of those players' records/achievements. Imagine you in the 2050's, reading a comment saying that what Roger and Nadal (and maybe Djokovic) have been doing is meaningless because the conditions in which they were playing weren't as good as that given new era (because of the new material, general game style, ...), what would you say? The same nonsense you're throwing out now?

[Saberq]

Originally Posted by MachineGun

But every player at the time benefited from the same treatments, the same type of material. Even if the game is very different nowadays, it doesn't change anything in their legacy and the immensity of those players' records/achievements. Imagine you in the 2050's, reading a comment saying that what Roger and Nadal (and maybe Djokovic) have been doing is meaningless because the conditions in which they were playing weren't as good as that given new era (because of the new material, general game style, ...), what would you say? The same nonsense you're throwing out now?

take any sport in the world besides baseball and tell me if the guys that were considered legends in the 50s,60s,70s could still be great in todays game?

[MachineGun]

Originally Posted by Saberq

take any sport in the world besides baseball and tell me if the guys that were considered legends in the 50s,60s,70s could still be great in todays game?

You missed my point. Try again.

[Dougie]

Originally Posted by Saberq

take any sport in the world besides baseball and tell me if the guys that were considered legends in the 50s,60s,70s could still be great in todays game?

The game changes, evolves, and equipment gets better and better. It´s not Laver´s or ROsewall´s fault. They were superb athletes in their own era. How they would play against Nadal or Federer is a pointless, stupid comparison.

[DLobb]

Saberq, your numbers are a little bit off. In 1959, Ganzales and Hoad had their serves measured, with Gonzales coming in at 112 mph. and Hoad at 110 mph. This measurement was different from today, in that it measured the overall speed from beginning to end, rather than the speed when it leaves the raquet, as they measure it today. This may account for much of the difference, as the ball travels fastest the instant it leaves the raquet.
Both Hoad and Gonzales were powerful physical specimens, and it is reported that in a bar confrontation, when one South African bar patron had insulted Segura, Hoad grabbed the front legs of the offender's chair and lifted him up to eye level, warning him to be quiet. The man obliged.

[thrust]

Originally Posted by MachineGun

You missed my point. Try again.

Saberg is totally biased towards today's players, responding to him is a waste of time.

[Johnny Groove]

Originally Posted by DLobb

Groove Dude, what are your standards for consistency and longevity? Didn't Gonzales and Rosewall know something about consistency when they rated Hoad at #1?
Hoad was very consistent from 1956 to about 1964, that is from ages 21 to 29, prime years for a player. In 1958 and 1959, he won the pro bonus money pool for the best overall record for those calendar years. In 1960, playing part-time, he won a four-man tour of Australia/New Zealand, and played in 8 tournament finals, all against Rosewall, winning four (including the two most important).
In 1958 and 1959, his overall record against Gonzales was 62 wins and 72 losses (winning 23 to 21 in 1959), including two stretches of ten-game losses when his back would not allow him to play well. Also, he won his matches against Gonzales both years at the Forest Hills Pro, the most prestigious pro tournament.
In 1963, he won a head to head against Laver 13 matches to 0, and in 1964 won a four-man tour against Laver, Rosewall, and Anderson (beating Laver 3 matches to 1).
Hoad's consistency numbers are comparable to other major players, and the number of challenging, high-calibre matches he played per year exceeds the numbers of Federer or Sampras.

Hoad was too inconsistent. He had some back problems as well, but in the biggest events, the Wembley Pro, the US Pro, and the French Pro, he continued to lose the big matches in the big events to the big players. Never won a pro slam. Sure he did well on the tours, but so did all the other guys. He made 13 slam finals, I gotta give him that, but he only briefly got to #1 amateur in the world and was never #1 in the world in the pros. He was a great player, but I can't put him any higher than #32, around Vilas, Nastase, and Djokovic.

[thrust]

Actually Rosewall did play younger players from non traditional tennis countries. Alex Olmedo from Peru, VJ Armataj from India, Raul Rameriz from Mexico, and no doubt a few others. Ken also had great movement on grass. He was the only top player I can recall who would slide on grass and one would on clay. For some reason I never saw Laver live, but did see him often on TV.