[Corey Feldman]

pretty sure i could beat Rod Laver if i practised hard for 6 months

[allpro]

Originally Posted by Corey Feldman

look at John Mac's FH when he was in his prime, it was an ugly assed push.

mcenroe had excellent placement and depth on the forehand. and as a lefty, he could create great angles and attack.

[Sophocles]

Originally Posted by Everko

have you ever seen old footage? The players pattycake the ball over the net, they were good for their time but there is no way they would beat a modern player with the cyclones of topspin. They would not know how to handle the powerful spin. The old time game looks like badminton, they would not hit back the power shots with their fly-swatters.

At least they didn't repeatedly dump easy volleys into the net.

Have you ever tried producing "cyclones of topspin" with a wooden racquet?

[Sophocles]

Originally Posted by Li Ching Yuen

Using this as a barometer is as retarded as it comes.
Unless you're 12 you should know that everything in life is relative. And so is the case in sports as well.

Back then tennis was reaching it's first boom so to speak, popularity wise, tennis-wise (IMO) and in other areas as well. Because of this whole idea that everyone that plays these days is a mug and everything was nice and rosey in the 80's people look at that era as the best to have ever been, by far.

It's not like that, not everyone raved about it, not everyone liked the endless rallies between Wilander and Lendl, or Berasategui and Bruguera. Or no one mentions the days when you had some guys that just couldn't put a serve back in court just because the guy on the other side was named Edberg although he was serving as hard as Rochus but placing it better.
The difference back then was that no player was gaining the kind of aura Djokovic has now of invincibility, because the calendar was not that build that way, tennis was not played in a way that would facilitate that.

The slams were more spread out withing the top players back then but their tennis was hardly anything so far out in quality that you would deem the era as the best that would ever be.

People hardly like to face the truth but if you would actually sit down and compare a guy like Wilander with a guy like Simon from nowadays I would guarantee you that a lot of similarities would be found, in everything.

Was Courier that great?...Put his beloved forehand next to what Soderling can crap out on that side and I won't be seeing you open your mouth about tennis for awhile.
There was a myth about tennis back then, because you only had some weekly magazines and some tournaments every year where you could talk and see the sport.
It's now changed in a world of non stop tennis and armchair analysts giving out free insight on what era is best without having a fucking clue or some sort of dim perspective on how this sport evolved over the decades.

I'm gonna judge the players from now on how thick their thighs were at their peak, considering of course that McDonalds was not as popular back then and that dumbbells were of poor quality.

Oh I see, you mean this one. I replied saying I wasn't sure it was serious, just because the ending clearly isn't.

If you actually read this you'll see the content is at odds with the belligerent tone. Of course we shouldn't look back with rose-tinted spectacles. We can all agree on that. And yes, in the 1980s it was very difficult to return Edberg's serve, but I think this had something to do with string technology, no? Even today a lot of people find it hard to return Federer's serve, which isn't exactly a bullet. As for the rest, I'm not sure how Courier & Bruguera are relevant to the 1980s, & yes, there are similarities between Wilander & Simon. Er, & that's kind of it.

Incidentally, I ought to add on this general point about comparing eras that I do have some very relevant experience, namely that I have actually played tennis with wooden & graphite racquets. The overwhelming feeling on moving from wood to graphite was, "I never realised this game could be so easy." A wooden racquet was very heavy & unwieldy, had hardly any sweet spot at all, & it was all but impossible to hit a clean groundstroke with it. Anybody tempted to deride the pace of the game in past eras really should try hitting with one.

[Saberq]

Originally Posted by Corey Feldman

pretty sure i could beat Rod Laver if i practised hard for 6 months

this sounds like a stupid post but it is not

[Everko]

Originally Posted by Sophocles

At least they didn't repeatedly dump easy volleys into the net.

Have you ever tried producing "cyclones of topspin" with a wooden racquet?

Nadal and others would have to get used to wooden rackets. Laver and those would win with wooden rackets. but Groove made the ridiculous comment that Laver would win with a modern racket, that's absurd

[Everko]

Originally Posted by allpro

mcenroe had excellent placement and depth on the forehand. and as a lefty, he could create great angles and attack.

It was still slow. Today's athletes would easily track it down and get in position to deliver a hammer blow.

[Vida]

I think if you train old champs with new equipment, they would be more likely to struggle today, than what would've been the case if present players were to train with wooden rackets and compete vs players of old. thats cause of the athleticism that is necessary now, but wasnt back than. to counter that we can say now it is all got lot less to do with skill than back than, but thats a stretch to say it would make much of a difference (cause of the adjustments). I mean take mcnroe, skinny as he was, in no way would he be able to cope with nadal today, no matter how advanced equipment he used to grow up with.

[Dougie]

It never ceases to amaze me how little respect some people have for Laver, Rosewall etc. Those guys played with rackets that had sweetspots the size of a fist, if they hit it flat. Imagine how small the sweetspot became if they hit with slice ( which they did all the time) or topspin ( less than Nadal, but they did that too). The hand-eye coordination had to be sublime, focus had to be absolute, and if you hit outside the sweetspot, the racket was pretty much dead. Is the game more physical now than it was then? For sure, but that´s at the cost of artistry, accuracy, touch and finesse that existed back then. Who would win with older/newer equipment is always subject to debate, and it´s pointless to argue about it. But players of the 1960-80´s were certainly not worse than Fed or Nadal.

[r2473]

Originally Posted by Sophocles

You don't have to have been alive in the 1960s to have an opinion on how they played tennis, for heaven's sake. The idiots who dismiss that era weren't alive then either.

I'm questioning how many people have actually watched matches of the players from that era. Not highlights. Not statistics. But watched the matches, and understand the tennis of that era. And not just the 1 or 2 top guys (Laver, etc). 1 or 2 guys doesn't make "the strongest era".

All of these Tilden experts. How much have you seen him play? What do you know about his opponents?

Most people responding are not even 30 years old and I really doubt if any single one of them knows anything more about Laver than some highlight reel film and some statistics. To me, that isn't much of an argument to proclaim that he played in the strongest era.

Anyway, of course you can't compare era's. But it's even worse when you compare them without knowing too much about them. All I'm reading is that people don't really like the tennis played today, so in an attempt to dismiss it, they are reminising about the "good old days"......which they now nothing about. My guess is that if these people were around back then, they would be thinking that Laver was only good because it was a "weak era".

[Dougie]

Originally Posted by r2473

I'm questioning how many people have actually watched matches of the players from that era. Not highlights. Not statistics. But watched the matches, and understand the tennis of that era. And not just the 1 or 2 top guys (Laver, etc). 1 or 2 guys doesn't make "the strongest era".

All of these Tilden experts. How much have you seen him play? What do you know about his opponents?

Most people responding are not even 30 years old and I really doubt if any single one of them knows anything more about Laver than some highlight reel film and some statistics. To me, that isn't much of an argument to proclaim that he played in the strongest era.

Anyway, of course you can't compare era's. But it's even worse when you compare them without knowing too much about them. All I'm reading is that people don't really like the tennis played today, so in an attempt to dismiss it, they are reminising about the "good old days"......which they now nothing about. My guess is that if these people were around back then, they would be thinking that Laver was only good because it was a "weak era".

It works both ways. I agree, most people havent seen the 60-70´s era in action. But then how can you dismiss those eras in favor of this era? It´s always debatable, but having some respect to past great shouldn´t be too much to ask.

[Shirogane]

Originally Posted by Li Ching Yuen

It's the most one-dimensional era ever. <- that's the only fact worth claiming.

90% of the people on this site have never seen a real clay court match or a grass court one.
Be glad that you have the chance to watch some proper indoor tennis this week in Metz.

It isn't that fast at Metz Expo.

[finishingmove]

Originally Posted by Vida

I think if you train old chimps with new equipment, they would be more likely to struggle today, than what would've been the case if present chimps were to train with wooden rackets and compete vs players of old. thats cause of the athleticism that is necessary now, but wasnt back than. to counter that we can say now it is all got lot less to do with skill than back than, but thats a stretch to say it would make much of a difference (cause of the adjustments). I mean take mcnroe, skinny as he was, in no way would he be able to cope with nadal today, no matter how advanced equipment he used to grow up with.

fixed

[Johnny Groove]

Originally Posted by Everko

Nadal and others would have to get used to wooden rackets. Laver and those would win with wooden rackets. but Groove made the ridiculous comment that Laver would win with a modern racket, that's absurd

If Nadal can adapt to a wooden racquet, what is to say Laver couldn't adapt to a modern one?

[Johnny Groove]

Originally Posted by Everko

have you ever seen old footage? The players pattycake the ball over the net, they were good for their time but there is no way they would beat a modern player with the cyclones of topspin. They would not know how to handle the powerful spin. The old time game looks like badminton, they would not hit back the power shots with their fly-swatters.

And this is with wooden racquets. If you have ever played with wooden racquets, you would know how difficult it is just to hit the sweet spot, let alone hit it hard. If you put guys like Laver and Borg in this era, with proper equipment and training and growing up with these new racquets, etc. I guarantee you they'd be multi-slam champs.

All Time Greats are champions in any era.

Originally Posted by Corey Feldman

how would Laver win? about 5'8 and a lightweight

he'd get destroyed every way possible

wasnt just wooden racquet's that made their shots slow as hell back then, they couldnt swing a racquet with power

look at John Mac's FH when he was in his prime, it was an ugly assed push.

Of course you can't swing a wooden racquet with power. You'd miss almost every time. Those guys back in the day had racquets with half the head size of these guys today. And Mac's forehand was his worst shot, let's ignore the entire rest of his game. Let's focus on Nadal's serve, Fed's backhand, Murray's forehand, yeah, those guys are mugs.

If Pics Ferrer at 5'8'' can be top 5 in the world, why can't Laver?